Dennis Muren-ILM Creative Director Says Special Effects Aren't Special Anymore

Become a member of the CGSociety

Connect, Share, and Learn with our Large Growing CG Art Community. It's Free!

THREAD CLOSED
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  04 April 2013
Dennis Muren-ILM Creative Director Says Special Effects Aren't Special Anymore

Quote:
"Dennis Muren may not be a household name (unless you live in a household where movie special effects are treated like a religion), but odds are high that you’ve seen his work. Muren has been a member of George Lucas’ Industrial Light & Magic for years and has worked on a huge range of films, including Jurassic Park and Willow. When a guy with Muren’s resume speaks about the state of his craft, we should all be listening.
And that’s what the creative director at ILM did recently, making the debate-inspiring statement that “In some ways, I think special effects aren’t special anymore.” Before you dash to the comment section to voice your opinion, allow Mr. Muren to clarify.

"

http://www.movies.com/movie-news/sp...l-anymore/11843
__________________
LW FREE MODELS:FOR REAL Home Anatomy Thread
FXWARS
:Daily Sketch Forum:HCR Modeling
This message does not reflect the opinions of the US Government

 
  04 April 2013
I agree, I think movies should be more subtle with their use of CG. That's also one of the points that can make CG look fake where it's overused and does things that you wouldn't do if the effect were real and you were just filming it.
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
  04 April 2013
Can't disagree.
 
  04 April 2013
I wish they would use more combos--since in addition to other issues, the use of CG alone can sometimes make it so costly and eliminate pre-planning so they end up with fx sequences that appear edited in the most economical way possible.

In Ghost Rider when the two ghost riders are heading through the desert together and then the older one says "that's all I had left in me, good luck son" and fizzles off into the sunset. Was that really the most dramatic conclusion for the older ghost rider? Or did they plan to have him in the final showdown and ran out of money?

Other movies like Clash of the Titans and Predators have similar types of things. Perhaps if I found the stories more engaging I wouldnt notice these things.


But even in Iron Man which I liked better-when he grabs the pilot out of the air. Its very fast--as if the fact that he is flying in a metal suit high above the ground isnt a big deal. They didnt milk it for dramatic impact like they might have if it had been done with aerial rigs against a bluescreen or something similar.
 
  04 April 2013
I tend to agree with the statement in the article's title, but regarding this:

Quote: Muren, ever the champion for the artistry of his craft, finds this a bit concerning – and merely makes his observation in hopes of inspiring the next generation of filmmakers and technicians to continue to push the envelope and help the field evolve. This could mean discovering new technologies (which is challenging work), or simply finding ways to inject more artistry into what we already have.


I don't think that changing the way we do effects is what needs to change, I think it's the actual writing of the films. Far too many films are just shallow excuses to put explosions and robots and stuff on the screen without any decent story, characters or character development. Effects should be there to support a good story, not make up for a lack of one. And that's really the biggest problem with Hollywood blockbusters right now. Look at blockbusters of previous decades - Star Wars and the Indiana Jones films had a lot of effects work but they also had compelling characters and good stories. Despite being pretty effects-heavy, we don't remember those films purely for those effects, we remember them for the endearing personalities of the characters and the challenges they faced.
__________________
leighvanderbyl.com
 
  04 April 2013
Good article but...
Originally Posted by leigh: I think it's the actual writing of the films.

This, absolutely. CG isn't going to fix a busted story.
__________________
HMC: Model Collection
WIP: Harris Nut House
WIP: WarCraft Troll
wyattharris.com Dig it!
 
  04 April 2013
Muren actually says as much here:

Quote: If you're going to make a motion picture, don't just throw computer graphics in to make everything bigger or more. Don't have an army of 20,000 centaurs or whatever it is, if the story is better with seven centaurs. They've lost sight, making things bigger and bigger.


The conflict is that old VFX are tired and boring but are easier to achieve since it's easier to point at a previous film and say "I want that." New and groundbreaking VFX are expensive and time consuming, two things that studios don't want to hear. They are even less interested in hearing it from a young and unproven director. There are millions of possible stories that could use innovative VFX in their storytelling, but few writer/directors who have the vision and technical understanding to pull it off.

Perhaps as tools get even cheaper, these visions will become more of a reality. I'm really hoping we're still at that stage in VFX where film was when it started: They began by filming normal, everyday events (trains arriving at a station, etc.) but people grew bored so they had to bring more and more story and character to the reels. We're in that place now with VFX and need to outgrow the reliance on spectacle and use them in a way that makes us care more about what's happening.
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
  04 April 2013
Originally Posted by leigh: I tend to agree with the statement in the article's title, but regarding this:

I don't think that changing the way we do effects is what needs to change, I think it's the actual writing of the films. Far too many films are just shallow excuses to put explosions and robots and stuff on the screen without any decent story, characters or character development. Effects should be there to support a good story, not make up for a lack of one. And that's really the biggest problem with Hollywood blockbusters right now. Look at blockbusters of previous decades - Star Wars and the Indiana Jones films had a lot of effects work but they also had compelling characters and good stories. Despite being pretty effects-heavy, we don't remember those films purely for those effects, we remember them for the endearing personalities of the characters and the challenges they faced.


Quoted for truth.

While Avatar and Prometheus were both effect heavy, I don't remember any of the character names, or traits, or progress. There are the training montage for Avatar, but the one that did the final shot was the girl with the arrow, and also saving him from Pandora air. So that Avatar guy is still the same he was before: non military type unlike the brother he's replacing.

And as for Prometheus, was there any character progress? Other than getting dumber, that is?

I however remembers Max and Atom from Real Steel. I know someone might hates me by mentioning that movie, but seriously, ever since "Batteries Not Included" and "Short Circuit", there is no movie where I cares about robot character, and being a kid, I cried for both movies (in case of SC, both films). Not even Wall-E.

I watch the making of 'Real Steel' and I find out some of the interesting tid bits. Although I didn't know if it 'for real' or 'done for marketing purposes'. You know, like 'doing this will make the movie better' or 'doing this and telling it in the promotion will bring people to the movie' type.


Then again, I don't know if audience has progress and now become 'instant gratification type'. What is the point of character progress when we all know that in the end the character is progressed enough to 'win'. Might as well as start the film with the character full progressed and give the viewer what they want - 'action'.

Which is why for me personally, Thor was much better than the Avengers. It was predictable, yes (Thor), but there are character progression, and in less expected way. I thought he will go to the Hammer, and the journey and confession will prove his changes. But it was not. He sacrificed himself, and the Hammer comes to him. I have to give my hat off to the screenwriter, whoever responsible for that part.

Anyway, CG need to help convey the story, not being the story.

Lately CG have become the 'technology talking point' of gaming in the 90s and 2000s. Remember reading game advertising where they talked about '256 color' or 'full motion video' or 'one million polygon on screen' or 'made using this awesome engine' instead of how fun it was.

I think I agree with the sentiment. Special effect is no longer special. Therefore it has no leverage in 'special feature' that advertise the movie. You don't talk about the lightning technology, or the sound recording technology, or the food that caterer brought, but why of why people kept talking the CG technicality as if it was the selling point. You can talk about it in the context of selling software (this was used to make water simulation for 2012!) but not in the content of selling the movie (this movie has the biggest simulation of collapsing building ever!). It was just like, what the point? You should sell the movie, not the effect.
 
  04 April 2013
More fx in films = more fx jobs.

Less fx in films = less fx jobs.


Seems like a no-brainer to me.

As others have said, the over-use of CG isnt a problem in film-making. Its bad writing/directing/etc. And even then, its only a "problem" from an artistic or creative standpoint. Plenty of CG-heavy films with bad writing make tons of $$$, which is ultimately what matters to the big studios.
__________________
Previously "Aryafx"

Website and Demo Reel:
http://www.sanjaychand.com

Last edited by SanjayChand : 04 April 2013 at 06:23 PM.
 
  04 April 2013
Funny VFX versus the story.
Whenever you hear about 'rogue' directors and the 'poor helpless' studios
having to reign them in after the production took months and months longer than forecast. The end result of the director absolutely having their own way are some of the greatest films ever made (sometimes with a lot of FX).The *Classic* blockbusters. The 'Must own' films. Apocalypse Now is the classic case. Star Wars, Alien, Abyss etc all at least gave you the sense the director was in *control* and with *fresh* ideas. FX were there as a compliment. Not a saviour for the film.

Most of today's blockbusters feel like they were made by committee.
If there is a great director at the helm he's gotten complacent to the studio over the years.

Peter Jackson and the Lord of the Rings seems to me to be the last incarnation of this. FX heavy but PJ seemed to have the reigns. I would say
the Hobbit shows PJ can get complacent too.

Avatar was great as well-but maybe not the 'freshest' of ideas for James Cameron (not like the Terminator for example). However it was a box office smash. The biggest ever. And absolute success.

All that to say what has been said before. If the studios are really running 'the show' the film is gonna SUCK no matter how much money is thrown at it. Fire the committee and the shareholders-they are ruining our entertainment.
 
  04 April 2013
Originally Posted by circusboy: Funny VFX versus the story.
Whenever you hear about 'rogue' directors and the 'poor helpless' studios
having to reign them in after the production took months and months longer than forecast. The end result of the director absolutely having their own way are some of the greatest films ever made (sometimes with a lot of FX).The *Classic* blockbusters. The 'Must own' films. Apocalypse Now is the classic case. Star Wars, Alien, Abyss etc all at least gave you the sense the director was in *control* and with *fresh* ideas. FX were there as a compliment. Not a saviour for the film.


I would disagree with that, Star Wars would have been much much different if George Lucas had his way, the prequels are an example of what happens when he has complete creative control. I'm sure limitations were also a part of most classic films that have a lot of FX
__________________
The Z-Axis
 
  04 April 2013
Originally Posted by circusboy: If the studios are really running 'the show' the film is gonna SUCK no matter how much money is thrown at it. Fire the committee and the shareholders-they are ruining our entertainment.


This is a sweeping generalization. There was discussion that John Carter was such a troubled production because Andrew Stanton stubbornly refused to allow any studio input out of fear that they would ruin his "vision". Now, that doesn't mean that if the studio had interfered it would have improved the film, but it is the reason that studios keep pushing directors around when there are huge amounts of money involved. They can always point to that film and say "Look, we let him have his way and he gave us a turkey."
__________________
www.artbot.com

 
  04 April 2013
Originally Posted by SanjayChand: More fx in films = more fx jobs.

Less fx in films = less fx jobs.


Seems like a no-brainer to me.



This is an interesting point, especially considering the echo-chamber that is a visual FX forum/website.

The point of movies, TV's, games etc is not to employ visual FX artists. The point *should* be to tell compelling stories. If VFX artists can help with that, great.

I have seen comments previously where people have said that more FX is good for the industry (being the CG industry), not matter what, as it employs more people.

Sorry, but no, that does not compute. VFX jobs exist to help create a vision. If that vision can be created another way, then yeah, those jobs should go.

That might no be a popular opinion, but no one has a "right to work" in VFX.

I think less or at the least more subtle VFX are needed to create compelling stories. Case in point: I saw the latest Iron Man 3 trailer and thought "Well, that's a nice Blizzard-like demo reel". The whole thing basically looked like a game intro and didn't seem "real" at any point.
 
  04 April 2013
Originally Posted by DoubleSupercool: This is an interesting point, especially considering the echo-chamber that is a visual FX forum/website.

The point of movies, TV's, games etc is not to employ visual FX artists. The point *should* be to tell compelling stories. If VFX artists can help with that, great.

I have seen comments previously where people have said that more FX is good for the industry (being the CG industry), not matter what, as it employs more people.

Sorry, but no, that does not compute. VFX jobs exist to help create a vision. If that vision can be created another way, then yeah, those jobs should go.

That might no be a popular opinion, but no one has a "right to work" in VFX.

I think less or at the least more subtle VFX are needed to create compelling stories. Case in point: I saw the latest Iron Man 3 trailer and thought "Well, that's a nice Blizzard-like demo reel". The whole thing basically looked like a game intro and didn't seem "real" at any point.


Short term, of course, more VFX is more VFX jobs. But in the interest of Sustainability, definitely you need quality writing, quality direction, quality risk and cost analysis, quality project management.

It is also important to note that it was a good story bundled with Special Effects that got the ball rolling.

I do not agree, though, that just making less FX will suddenly make a film better. I still cannot be bothered to watch "The Color Purple". I just don't want to! So no, I don't want films to have less FX, and I don't want games to suddenly go back to 8-bit sprites.

But what I think needs to happen (and I hope people pay attention to this now to keep their doors open)... is RIGHT usage of VFX and RIGHT usage of CG.

Films like Oblivion, while not really taking us back to a 1980's sense of wonder, are definitely a step in the right direction because it shows a "determined" use of CG and VFX to do something defined by artistic and storytelling goals.
__________________
"Your most creative work is pre-production, once the film is in production, demands on time force you to produce rather than create."
My ArtStation
 
  04 April 2013
Quote:
If you're going to make a motion picture, don't just throw computer graphics in to make everything bigger or more. Don't have an army of 20,000 centaurs or whatever it is, if the story is better with seven centaurs. They've lost sight, making things bigger and bigger.


The problem is, I suspect, that movies likely get started by some guys sitting around saying, "I want to see 20,000 centaurs attack a place and blow everything up."

The next exec says, "Great! Get someone to write that up."

"How about that guy who wrote the last blockbuster?"

"Perfect. Call him up. Tell him he has until Friday!"

Kind of like when Kevin Smith was pitching to the studio exec who wanted a giant spider in the film no matter what film they were making.

Originally Posted by kelgy: One of my favorite films of the late 90s was the Mask of the Zorro and the production history was a mess where people came and went and no one person had complete oversight (there is a tiny bit of cgi in the movie--a computer generated tear drop).


A movie like The Mask of Zorro shouldn't even have CG, any more than The Three Musketeers should have Hong Kong wire fu fighting. I bet if they made it today, though, there would be a CG double of Zorro floating around weightlessly doing who knows what odd things. Maybe fighting 20000 centaurs.
__________________
Terrence Walker
Studio ArtFX
Learn How to Make Your Own Animated Projects!
You don't need millions of dollars or major studio backing!!

Last edited by teruchan : 04 April 2013 at 11:53 PM.
 
Thread Closed share thread



Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
CGSociety
Society of Digital Artists
www.cgsociety.org

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2006,
Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Minimize Ads
Forum Jump
Miscellaneous

All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34 AM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.